Quantcast
Connect with us

Dangerous quarantine exemptions for churches are not necessary for ‘freedom of religion’

Published

on

Thanks for your support!
This article was paid for by reader donations to Raw Story Investigates.

If you’d asked me even two months ago what the next issue or event to spark acrimonious church-state conflict was likely to be, I doubt global pandemic would have even crossed my mind. And yet, in retrospect, it seems all too predictable. America is a country, after all, in which megachurch leaders make headlines for declaring that a tragically dead two-year-old child will be resurrected. It’s a country in which far too many Christians prefer to address mental health via demonology rather than modern psychology and psychiatry. A country in which I experienced the heartbreak not only of watching a family friend die slowly of cancer, but also of seeing the friend’s family devastated at not receiving the miraculous healing they declared would certainly come. 

ADVERTISEMENT

We should thus be unsurprised that radical charismatic Protestants are among the most vocal Americans defying the public health measures recommended by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and implemented to varying degrees by state and local governments across these United States. Alas, our country is #blessed with a clunky federalism that exacerbates our ongoing crisis of democracy, and the lack of quick and consistent federal and presidential guidance on responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is surely making matters worse.

Indeed, Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan recently expressed exasperation with the coronavirus crisis, saying: “We’re all building the airplane as we fly it right now.” Whitmer has been under fire from liberals for caving to Republican pressure to clarify that religious organizations are exempted from restrictions on large gatherings in Michigan. While admonishing the public that staying home from church is best, Whitmer maintains that the constitutional principle of separation of church and state prevents her from enforcing restrictions on large gatherings organized by houses of worship.

While solidly blue states including Washington and Oregon, where I reside, have explicitly mandated that restrictions include “faith-based” gatherings, some other states, including Ohio, and Texas, have, like Michigan, explicitly clarified that churches may continue to hold in-person services. Indeed, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s executive order includes “religious facilities, entities and groups and religious gatherings” under “Essential Businesses and Operations.”

When asked about religious organizations, Texas Governor Greg Abbott explained they were exempt from large gathering restrictions due to “freedom of religion.” While his rhetoric is more in line with the talking points the Christian Right has used to advance a theocratic agenda in recent years, both Whitmer and Abbot are essentially making First Amendment arguments.

Their claims are certainly controversial. My limited understanding of constitutional law—I am far from an expert—suggests that such arguments are not in line with the relevant precedents, but that approaches made on the basis of the federal- or state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) might hold more weight. I asked Nick Fish, President of American Atheists, to weigh in on the legal issues as his organization understands them. (Full disclosure: I was slated to speak at this year’s American Atheists Convention in Phoenix, Arizona over Easter weekend before it was postponed until next year, and I remain slated to speak when the event is able to take place.)

ADVERTISEMENT

Fish, who hails from Michigan himself, contends that the “irresponsible and dangerous” exemptions from public health measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic that some governors have made for religious institutions “are unnecessary under the law.” 

With respect to Abbot’s “freedom of religion” argument, he notes: “Even religious liberty advocates with expansive views of religious exemptions recognize that our government can limit gatherings at churches to protect lives. In the 1944 case Prince v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court stated that ‘the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community…to communicable disease.’”

Fish also maintains that there’s no case for such exemptions under RFRA legislation. RFRA laws, Fish explains, hold that “any government action that substantially burdens religious exercise must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.” And, he argues, state bans on large gatherings as a means of slowing the spread of COVID-19 meet that legal test, claiming, “protecting public health is the quintessential compelling government interest,” and adding, “limiting attendance is the least restrictive means of preserving public health, and the ban is narrowly tailored to that goal.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The argument seems compelling,  but Fish goes further, making a moral appeal to America’s governors:

Before it’s too late and more lives are lost, governors must repeal exemptions for houses of worship. Likewise, governors that enact large gathering bans over the next few weeks must include religious services, as well. To do otherwise is to endanger the lives of countless Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19 is no respecter of persons, and it seems clear that we do not have the time to wait for these particular church-state issues to play themselves out in the courts before the American healthcare system is overwhelmed by the new virus. Is it too much to hope that common sense will prevail in the meantime? 

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

The truth about the numbers of masks and tests that Trump likes to quote at press conferences

Published

on

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics," said Mark Twain. Over 100 years later, Twin could never have predicted a president like Donald Trump.

During his press conference Sunday, and in previous press conferences, Trump has delighted in coming to the podium to cite numbers of masks, ventilators, gowns, test kits and other things he has been responsible for allocating.

While the numbers sound huge, they are but a fraction of the requests.

Former FBI agent and adviser to the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem explained the number problem: "Numbers are not impressive unless compared to need. Polowczyk just said they are delivering 2.5 million masks to nation. NYC needs 50 million. Supply chain is just numbers to outside observer. Don’t be impressed just cause seems like a lot."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump just wants to be ‘the president on television’ and he ‘is not temperamentally equipped’: CNN reporters

Published

on

CNN White House reporter John Harwood and Dana Bash noted that President Donald Trump loves to be the president on television, but not exactly in real life.

"Wolf, what we saw tonight was the limitations of President Trump as a leader in a situation like this," said Harwood. "He is not temperamentally equipped to tell people, 'this is going to be hard. You need to stick with it.' Push delayed gratification as he says, and he's told us explicitly, he's a cheerleader. He wants to give good news, not bad news. He's someone who wants affirmation in the moment. So, what he says is-- 'light at the end of the tunnel. We have to open this country back up.' He knows people want to hear that."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump swears he would wear a mask ‘if I thought it was important’ — after first lady touts masks as important

Published

on

During the daily press conference from President Donald Trump, he was asked about the first lady's tweets about the importance of wearing a mask.

https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1246879128227328007

https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1246192228491558916

But when speaking at his Sunday press briefing, Trump said he would only wear one "if I thought it was important." He then asked the reporter if he thought that Trump should put one on to answer the reporter's question.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1246955707133497344

It wasn't quite as bad as his comment Friday when the Center for Disease Control had just released a statement that people should be wearing masks more regularly to help protect themselves from touching their face and any possible infection if they are asymptomatic.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image